This was clealry a setup up, some troll, trolling trolls to troll trolls.
Westboro Baptist Church, the controversial church of God Hates Fags infamy, claims that the legions of Anonymous are planning to attack its website. However, according to at least one faction of Anonymous, the supposedly threatening open letter is the work of WBC itself, which is inviting an attack in order to garner sympathy …
This was clealry a setup up, some troll, trolling trolls to troll trolls.
Teach the bigots a lesson by burning the fuckers.
Much as I hate the Westbrough Baptists (and I _really_ do) stooping to their level is hardly the way forward.
WBC isn't a bunch of nutcases, not are they particularly religious. It's a very simple scam: they provoke people until somebody gets fed up and resorts to violence. They then sue that individual and make hundreds of thousands of dollars. It's basically a business.
They're deplorable and despicable, but here in the U.S. they can't be stopped, which in a broad sense is a good thing. The best antidote to bad free speech is more free speech.
Can I direct you to http://phelps-a-thon.com/ ?
...as for WBC: tiny & insignificant group of religious nutcases in vile/transparent publicity stunt? Who knew!?
And whatever next? Illiterate hick pastors threatening to burn copies of the Koran? As if!
In fact, the WBC consists entirely of the *(incestuous) family of Phelps, the "pastor" of the fake church.
And Anonymous absolutely did not target WBC; the entire load of crap was a bare-faced lie by WBC in order to get some more free publicity.
The best thing that could happen would be a tacit agreement amongst all the various news agencies to never report on anything involving the WBC.
The WBC website is likely offline due to the media attention. I think someone phrased it as "The Slashdot Effect"
You should do a little bit of mental work before default-contributing it to Anonymous.
godhatesfags.com and godhatessweden.com (I kid you not) are probably both up for renewal, and Pastor Fred is perhaps a bit strapped for cash. Just a few days to go, and these two fine websites will soon be destined for the great Google Cache In The Sky.
"I know! I'll blame them there Heynonnynonny peepul!" he cries - and the next thing we know, we have a conspiracy on our hands.
However, since the 'global village' of the Internet appears primarily to serve as a means for a globe, full of village idiots, to get together and believe irational things, I suspect the Good Pastor is merely continuing a fine tradition - while his own church demonstrates that some belief systems are simply too irational, even for the Internet!
... and I don't even see too much difference between them. Both are dogmatic and unwilling to engage with anyone that disagrees with them, the difference being that Anonymous are far more effective as bullys. From a subjective point of view I also generally consider them to be promoting things I consider beneficial, but I don't for a second agree with their tactics.
AC not intended to show affiliation, obviously.
Anonymous actually target soneoneobe/thing that's doing something wrong. Westboro do anything it takes, including targeting bystanders and innocents, to get on TV.
There's a clear moral divide between the two.
in whose opinion? I'm sure they both feel equally justified in their opinions.
However I have to agree with the original poster about anonymous' tactics. You can beat bullies by out-bullying them, but that just makes you a bigger bully.
And at least Westboro aren't hiding who they are. If Anonymous are so convinced they are correct why do they need to hide behind anonymity?
(Caveat: I personally think god loves fags as much as he loves anyone else. He made them, after all!)
What, like HBGary who were going to do the immense wrong of attempting to use statistics to determine who some of the members of Anonymous are?
Anonymous are, literally, a vigilante group in the uninflected dictionary definition sense of the word. So whether you support them cuts to your opinions on vigilante justice.
How is a DDOS at the end of the day any moraly different to what UK Uncut are doing "Shutting down" banks and shops?
Sometimes the law simply doesn't work. The law is protecting Westboro at the cost of everyone else.
Perhaps I should reword that... Anonyous goes after the "Cause" of their ire - those that try to crush free speech by not processing payments for groups dedicated to free speech and accountability for example.
As to why they're anonymous, it has to go to their long standing anti-Scientology campaign. The COS plays very dirty, 5mins of web surfing on sites like xenu.net will explain it better than I can. The COS come after you and your family.
DDOS attacks are no different than sit ins were. We name national holidays after MLK, but for some reason we demonize the modern day equivalent.
Anonymous are anonymous because of the fear of being targeted by Tom Cruise's friends. Any other campaign they run is an offshoot of their original purpose.
I don't think God hates fags either. I don't think God exists actually, but I'd love to see some evidence proving otherwise. Got any? No? Thought not.
Oddly the WBC has convinced me either God doesn't exist, or isn't worthy of my worship as he's either not good, or omnipotent.
it's all around you. See it? No? Thought not. Doesn't mean it's not there....
Yep, that get-out will be used until the end of time, and will be met with "yeah but doesn't mean it is there either" forever and ever amen.
...if we can agree to differ. But, to be fair, he started it!!!
were the sit ins anonymous? The people in the sit-ins put themselves in the front line and faced down the state and it's bully boys. Anonymous stay and home and attack remotely with minimal exposure of themselves. Can you see the difference?
..then why stay anonymous when dealing with Westboro, or anyone else? Not having to take responsibility for your actions is a dangerous precedent and I've no reason to trust that anonymous will always make the right choice. Who do I complain to when they get if wrong?
WBC are seriously broke and need to get more funding. There are also a lot of lawyers in the congregation/family.
1. Provoke attack using Low Orbit Ion Cannon by fools who don't know it doesn't hide your IP
2. Send out letters along the model of ACS:Law and others - "We know it was you - pay us $1,000 or we sue you for lots more".
I doubt Fred Phelps snr and his family have anything interesting in their e-mails that would provide any sort of surprises. As they mostly all live in one place, it's hardly likely they're going to have an internal mail archive of note anyway - it's a family concern, not a corporation.
If ever an organisation was not worth hacking, it's WBC.
As this WBC crowd seem to be doing all of this to provoke law suits, maybe the answer is to reply in kind.
If Gods legal representatives on Earth would like to take WBC to court on grounds of libel (the placards) I'm sure that a suitable class action could be won. I suggest $1 for each of Earths current living population would be a fair and appropriate settlement. The only WBC defense would be to prove that God actually said the statements on the placards. I believe that God would not need to be called as a witness...
They know the legal system. They never libel a person.
Read this interesting link:
"Fred Phellps is a conman" : http://kanewj.com/wbc/
Would be lovely to see those twats taken off the internet.
Would love to see them taken off the Earth, in a non violent way. Maybe Marshall Applewhite can come back for them.
Anonymous or West Boro?
West Boro that is.
obvious troll is obvious!
Anonymous has responded in the way i expected, by doing nothing and letting westboro know that they're not going to fall for their trolling and wont help them gain media coverage.
offline hassling has been put forward as a means to pick up the glove, a far more effective way to stay anonymous :)
Anyone else get the feeling that the WBC website is discovering what a botnet is right about now?
I'd prefer a site hack and something about WBC supporting gay rights, AIDs research, free condoms - you know, all those things that they say God hates.
And keep doing it.
WBC is founded on taunting people they see as legitimate targets with the excuse that God hates them. They thrive on reaction as they see that as proof what they are doing is right. WBC is a family business where the kids are out there waving placards at dead soldiers and chanting that they deserved it. Legs blown off with an IED? God laughs like Nelson.
WBC is so screwed up they would do a 'Day One' job on us if they could. They most likely think the Tea Party are a bunch of radical Communists.
God hates us all.
Sounds like they just gave their permission for 3rd party penetration testing to me. No point being a crybaby when you go offline when you literally asked for it.
"Anonymous warned that the supposed call to arms was a trap set up by "attention-whoring idiots"."
Now do you think that those Church members are technically savvy enough to hack Anonymous which is filled with hackers?
Or do you think that there is some other 'tech savvy' organization that Anonymous has pissed off enough that they would want to start this mess?
There's a Marlboro Baptist Church that must love fags...
Two countries, divided by a common language...
<happy sigh & chuckle>
Almost funny enough to make a barbarian atheist like me wanna go to that church!
That wasn't a Marlboro!
Don't feed the trolls.
Offensive != noteworthy.
...is the only way to describe WBC vs Anonymous.
99% of people on this forum are atheists, why does it bother you so much that some church group or other hates homosexuals?
If you try to crowbar a 2000 year old religious text into the reality of modern life, you are unlikely to come up with a coherent moral framework. You either equivocate about the text, or spout frothing mouthed bigotry, or more often some combination of the two.
Ah, you just fell into the trap.
WBC is no more a "real" church group than the Hitler Youth was about healthy camping and outdoor sports.
They are a money making scheme based on (barely) legal entrapment.
You are seriously suggesting that one should ignore bigotry if it is perpetrated by a group of which one is not a member? Should that be only if the bigotry is perpetrated against a group of which you are also not a member, or does it include any bigotry that group indulges in?
How remarkably self-centred of you.
My issues with the Wesboro Baptist church are less their disgusting beliefs, but the indefensable methods of which they express their views.
. . . suggesting that homosexuality is a new thing, given that it was massively prevalent amongst the greeks and the romans (you know, pre-dating the alleged date Christ was around).
Of course wars are new, we never had wars before, especially not ones about exerting control based on your own beliefs (well, except for the crusades, the roman expansion, Alexander the greats conquests, the creation of Mesopotamia blah blah).
Lets also not forget that the religious text in question is also not 2000 years old.
Do you have a source for that number, or did you just make it up?
I'm guessing the latter.
I love people who cry foul about bigotry, because every last one of them is a hypocrite.
Tolerance means tolerating bigots, racists, hate speakers and anyone else you disagree with.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017